Topic: DT trust ABUSE by people here. Needs attention at once before goes out of hand (Read 1905 times)

There are many users like this here in the forum and only few are reported this because the forum has wide variety of sections that needs to go through one by one posts and reply if you want to trace something that might happen. Anyway, DT trust abuse will not be exempted for any rules and regulations on this forum. You can report and ask the admin report the problem.

I think it's very clear the problem isn't people spamming the forum with default simplistic opinions, but people earning money. And it's really easy to see this, otherwise the called spammers would be just silenced by the bothered members on their personal profiles, without major troubles and complaints.

However, without this issue there wouldn't be a reason for this elite to exist, they would be just "random people" (like they like to say) among other random people. So they created the issue, to sell the solution, getting rid of the concurrency smartly and creating a new status for themselves, also defining what are good posts, what aren't, who deserves to be mocked and who deserves to be praised.

On the other hand, the plans of spreading red paint everywhere without limits weren't looked favorably and they had to retreat (even though more than one attempt was cogitated). But the concurrency should still be eliminated somehow, and then, suddenly accounts negotiations were criminalized by those who were acknowledged with this practice before.

Actually, the rules are applied in a personal manner and doesn't have the same weight for everyone, creating an environment of instability and dubiousness.

And after merit system implementation the elite just became more aggressive to earn points fast and to show how superior they are from the randoms, although it has also a positive point, that is the exposure of the VIP club "exchanging cards" among themselves, as it was already showed.

---

The part that people can be negatived for almost any reason is completely surreal, and even worse is the connivance or indifference, omission of DT members towards these surreal situations, just to avoid a conflict with DT partners. So, the conclusion is that those who should watch over justice for all, doesn't matter who you are, don't care about anything else than keeping a good relationship with those who are equally powerful or more powerful (to prevent retaliation).

Those who could make the difference don't put themselves on someone's shoes. They don't consider the same can happen to them, maybe not in this forum, but in somewhere else in life sooner or later.

Thank you but honestly when there are gangs that will red trust you to stop you speaking the truth

Then if that does not work they will create a puppet account (cos they are cowards) to try and get you banned

Then there is no such thing as too far with these people.

Never let anyone silence your free speech to say anything you like if  it is true and you can present a case to support it.,

If nobody ever stands up to them they will grow in power until nobody will be able to.

First they came for the......

You know how it goes

I read all your previous discussions (cryptohunter vs gang members ) it was kinda funny but it went to far.

It is really sad to see great members like you wasting your time this way.

I don't need to explain anything to you other than I have already said about it.

Let's set an example to others to not be financially rewarded to post. Unless you are a sig spammerholic yourself I await your answer join my list or never hear the end of it scum bag. You pulled the dragons tail and I am already massively wealthy now thanks to bitcointalk and my excellent trading skills ..and well thanks the pharmacist you did your bit...hahah I'll have a bottle of 2013 Armand de Brignac Rose on you ...thanks dude,.

Simple moronbozo get it??

Now fuck off and create more 1 day old puppet accounts to try and silence me from asking you painful questions.

YES or NO WAY IN HELL  hahahha  good old thepharmacist - what a funny dip shit loser that guy is. Probably still staring at those PIVX i sold that dumb smuck for 100x or 200x or 300x the price I bought them for hahaha.  Happy xmas the pharmacist..... have a drink on me you poor cowardly cretin. Alone at home. Those canned meats I sent over may be out of date check them before eating haha don't want you having more of those shitting the bed problems you were talking about in the other thread..hahah No shit readers this is true go check it out.

Can you quote exact words where TP said this?

Can you address this:

---

I never did such thing. I created account which was tagged by DT on request and I didn't really hide that I have created it. I even put "M" at the end of the post, which you can see if you scroll back 1 or 2 page.

Use max cpu power to try to work out who they could be moronbozo

the forum went downhill from financially motivated posting get that div

set and example to the noobs coming here remove your high paid sigs before telling them financially motivated posting is wrong.

Will you drop your sig for 3 years or NO WAY IN HELL?

I am changing the terms for the better you moron. More years = less sig spam for us all.... try to understand imbecile

We can all agree anyone using a sig before 3 years will be perm banned.

I am waiting NOW to do this with the gang member(s)

THE PHARMACIST I HEARD JUST SAID

"NO WAY IN HELL "  HAHAHAH "NO WAY IN HELL"   WILL I EVER STOP SPAMMING FOR MONEY HAHAHA - the pharmacist

next time i see that dumb ass creep telling people they are financially motivated posters I will bitch slap him around that thread with these quotes from him.

hahah

ohhhh they are talking about red trust again now......ohhhhhhhh red trust abuse becaue I am challenging them to remove their paid sigs.

See what they really are.

Next there will invent ANOTHER 1 DAY OLD SOCK PUPPET ACCOUNT TO TRY AND GET ME BANNED  LIKE THEY JUST DID

I am net positive beyond what you will ever be and am a giant of achievements compared to you all .....self righteous high horse acheivers of nothing  who NO WAY IN HELL WILL STOP SIG SPAMMING AND FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED POSTING. lol

How this topic moved from "DT trust ABUSE" to "removing signature"?

I can only say that suchmoom, fox pup, malboroza and ieoioei are not DT members, I don't even know who suchmoom, malboroza and ieoioei are.
I have tried to search these members, unfortunately, without result.

Joke on the side, perhaps OP think abuse of power is in signature? @OP Can you explain this? Do you think someone here is abusing trust because they have signature?

No, I'm not doing it because you're an idiot who can't be trusted to keep their word. Change in terms is a symptom of that, as is your lying and attributing words to people who never said anything of the sort (kinda ironic given your complaint about scare quotes).

THIS IS GREAT LOYCE IS HERE AND AGREEING THEREFORE TO REMOVE HIS SIG FOR 3 YEARS JUST A FEW MORE GANG MEMBERS TO COME.

stick to memes don't post anything other than that or you will fuck it up .

So far we have

SUCHMOOM - WILL REMOVE 3 YEARS
LOYCEV - WILL REMOVE 3 YEARS.
THE PHARMACIST - NOT HERE YET COMING SOON
FOX PUP - NOT HERE YET COMING SOON
MALBOROZA - NOT HERE YET COMING SOON.
IEOIOEI - NOT HERE YET COMING SOON

CRYPTO HUNTER - WILL REMOVE AS SOON AS FULL GANG AGREES

2 DOWN 4 TO GO.....YAY  we are getting somewhere.

Maybe I should just continue answering to cryptohunter in memes:

MY WORD WAS GANG MEMBERS YOU FUCKING TOOL READ AGAIN YOU SNIVELING WRETCH can you go back and edit the post are you accusing me of lying was it in scare quotes lol you fucking div

I would only do it if all you spamming divs do it...unless you are one entity we all lose the same. I'm not letting any of you getting paid to spam from now on,. So only the one alt that didnt have a paid sig will remove the paid sigs must stay for financially motivated posting. I see.

GET THEM ALL HERE NOW.

YOUR LOGIC IS RETARDED MORON- - WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING THAT I AM INCREASING THE YEARS??? YOU DUMB SHIT DO YOU WANT TO HURRY BACK TO SIG SPAMMING OR SOMETHING. INCREASING TO 5 YRS NOW. HURRY UP GET THEM HERE.

Or are you saying if I reduce back to 2 years you will do it....hahah your logic is a fail as ever you thick piece of cowardly shit trying to get me banned and didnt even check the post links you dumb cowardly jackal.

hahah not doing it cos the years are getting longer. hahah

why will they not all do it? what is the problem are you saying they are spammers now? are you accusing them of being spammers and will not remove. Have you asked them even yet... weird i have been telling them face to face to come here and do it already where are they??

I'm calling it off because you're an idiot. You keep changing it from 1 year to 2 years to 3 years to 6 people. Let's do it one-on-one if you still want to keep your word.

NO no come back and tell me why it has to be off are you saying these other spammers will not do it?
Bring them here don't try to forget my deal now you got me excited.

gang members remove for 3 years i remove for 3 years

why are you calling it off .....are you worried about your alts? or did your jackal gang say they want to keep sig spamming???

Will you have no pals left if we call off sigs ? will they stop posting?

I knew it would never happen LOLOLOL financially motivated posters criticising other financially motivated posters HAHAHA

This gang of gimps and cowards make me laugh ...merry xmas you broke bums.
Hope the sig spamming helped you make rent and have a few snacks....
Send me your addresses on PM I am burning wads of 100s because it is to much hassle to buy wood with my riches...
Dumping my pivx bags (well a few coins all that bum can afford) on the pharmacist the poor dumb shit was brilliant ..doh... ....hahaha
merry xmas pharmacist....hahah

Yes, they're all my alts. The deal is off.

HAHAH  only in your mind ...this is your logic you dumb retarded. EVERYONE LOSES THE SAME IF WE ALL REMOVE IT IS NOT ME LOSING 1 AND ANYONE ELSE LOSING 6. I WILL NOT LET YOUR GANG BE PAID TO SNIPE AT ME AND SPAM AND GET PAID. WE ALL REMOVE FIND OUT WHICH ONES SAY NO AND REPORT BACK. GANG MEMBERS

ARE THEY ALL YOUR ALTS YOU ILLOGICAL FUCKING DIV? ONLY THEN WOULD IT BE UNFAIR. THEY PROBABLY ARE IF YOU ARE SAYING IT IS UNFAIR TO ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL. I THINK SOME COULD WELL BE YOUR ALTS GET THEM ALL GONE YOU SNIVELLING COWARDLY WRETCH.

I SAID GANG MEMBER"S" REMOVE AND I WILL REMOVE AT ONCE- ASK THEM HERE AND ONE BY ONE THEY SHOULD SAY YES OR NO.

WHY WOULD YOU WORRY ABOUT THEM LOSING THEIR SPAMMING FOR DOLLARS??? ARE SOME OF THESE YOUR OTHER ACCOUNTS? YOU MERIT CYCLING JACKAL.

ANY ONE OF THEM THAT IS NOT HERE AND GOING THROUGH WITH IT AFTER YOU AGREED TO MY GANG MEMBERS AGREEMENT.

YOU DID NOT HAVE A PAID SIG ON THIS ONE OF YOUR ALTS SO DON'T THINK I DID NOT NOTICE. BRING THE GANG MEMBERS NOT GANG MEMBER.

HURRY UP I WILL INCREASE NOW TO 3 YEARS IF ALL HERE IN 30MINS AND AGREE TO IT. hahaha where are the rest hiding come on bring them here suchmoron,

LOL so now you change the proof and use other quotes... your last post was a lie

As if i read your shit closely you baffoon

I mean quote my entire examples not cut bits out of them that could mean anything you imbecile bring the full quotes and let me see what you say.... anyway of course you are not someone I would accept anything from anyway you're some repetitive spaz who double posts me questions that I already have responded too....

bring the full quotes and what they are supposed to represent. Your last post was a lie or the evidence your brought to demonstrate what you were saying was fucked.

Now take time bring full quotes and highlight the bit you think proves that I did not listen to you.... and accept what you told me. Which I would not even probably read properly because you keep posting the same stuff I have already replied to.

ALSO SUCH MOON SAID YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE YOUR SIG FOR 2 YEARS TO MATCH THE REST OF THE GANG AND MYSELF.
GET OVER THERE TO OTHER THREAD AND NOW AND DO IT.

I realize it is a natural inclination to defend yourselves; however, in this case it only results in more vitriol being spewed. I think many of the participants in this thread should take heed to the advise to not feed the trolls. However, if this obvious flame war is serving to invigorate you all, proceed.

Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks a writer places around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.[4] Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes..


FAIL



MAY

So you lied. You haven't removed your signature even though I did. It makes no sense for 6 other users remove their signatures in exchange for your one signature. Do it now.

Here is the post in which I explain to you what scare quotes are (please note the timestamp):



Here are just a selection of posts from you, after my aforementioned post, that continue to perpetuate your lie that marlboroza misquoted you:



My timeline matches just fine. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it not true.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS  .... I AM GLAD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DO THIS TOGETHER TO PROVE WE ARE ENTHUSIASTS.  LET'S GET EVERYONE TO WITNESS IT.

BRING THEM ALL HERE SO WE CAN GET IT DONE RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. I AM 100% READY TO DO IT IF WE ALL DO. I WILL RAISE IT TO 2 YEARS IF YOU ARE QUICK TO BRING THEM HERE IN THE NEXT HOUR TICK TOCK.

THE PHARMACIST
LOYCEV
MARLBOROZA
o_e_l_e_o
LAUDA

WE ALL DO IT RIGHT NOW FOR 2 YEARS AND WE HAVE THE DATE PUBLISHED SOMEWHERE SO NONE OF US CAN GO BACK ON IT. IF WE GO BACK ON IT PERM BAN. BRING THE ENTIRE GANG HERE. I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS

BRING THEM NOW. I want to hear we are all doing it together.

I for one don't want to silence you. I think you have a pretty good combination of narcissism and stupidity that can be entertaining for quite a while.


I'll take you up on that. I have removed my signature. Don't be a liar and remove yours.

I said I would lock this but now these coward scum bags have made a 1 day old puppet account to hide behind and try and get me banned for copy and paste. They were all over this with loyce the moron meriting a report  for plagiarism where the links to sources of all information are in the same post at the end of the post. LOL they are so dumb they try to present a case where I am clearly fighting a scam and the link to the information is there in the 2nd link at the bottom as an action of someone trying to claim the work as his own .... I mean they create a 1 day old puppet because they are too cowardly to do it themselves. Right after 1 day ago trying to give me red trust and abusing the system.

They know 1 day after red trusting me through abuse of the trust system this will look bad for them to try and snag me with this crap and it has now backfired on them, because they are too fucking stupid to notice I supplied the links.

These zero accomplishment losers hoarding merit and cowardly trying to silence people demonstrating they are a bunch of power hungry moronic fools that are disrespectful to older pre merit legends that have really made a difference here. Along the way making stupid statements and forming illogical comments that fold under scrutiny.

This gang of scoundrels need to be banned themselves for trying such sneak methods to silence people who don't fall in with their agenda.

I had been warned this bunch of dumb fools were currently pouring over my post history trying to find some way to silence me sticking up for some legends getting taken down by this black and white copy and paste tool they think they can use to their advatage.

I have had warnings to go through my post history and check for any tiny thing to stop them before they get me. FUCK THAT I KNOW I AM NET POSITIVE HERE AND HAVE DONE 1000X THE GOOD THESE SIG SPAMMING MERIT HOARDING DUMD FUCKS HAVE.

I asked them all to name their greatest achievements since being here. The others could not think of anything of note except trying to play whack a mole  and the pharmacist spineless moronic dip shit failure said that being able to join a high paid "exclusive " sig campaign was his finest achievement. Come on you been here years and still have to sig spam for pennies you stupid valueless opinions over and over on everything for a few dimes. That dumb ass managed to lose on PIVX.... I mean what a dumb ass.

REMOVE YOUR SIGS GANGE MEMBERS - I will remove mine for as long as you remove yours. Let's prove you are nothing like the noobs you are so critical of from trying to make some sig money here. You are a fucking joke.

Disgraceful.

Ohh look another member of the gang of course I forgot this one.... don't feel left out. Rolling in with more lies.


So now you roll out observable LIES against me to illogically prove your case. You should get RED TRUST NOW I SUPPOSE FOR THIS PROVEN LIE which I can easily demonstrated this is not one you could back out of. BUT I AM NOT THE SORT OF TURD TO LEAVE YOU RED TRUST UNLESS YOU ARE A FUCKING SCAMMER BECAUSE I AM NOT A WHINING GIMP LIKE YOU GUYS.

Your time line does NOT match with your PROVEN LIE.

You are quoting something I said just after I saw the red trust and BEFORE IT HAD been explained to me about such a thing as scare quotes at this point in time so I did not choose to ignore actmynames ruling that I am mistaken at all and if you even took the time to read this thread instead of jumping in to fight for your gang you would notice I have said I accept I could have been wrong we will never know unless you read malborozas mind.

People including actmyname and other started to explain this AFTER the quote you are using and falsely claiming came before my statement again that he was misquoting me ............you are claiming I knew about all of this scare quotes and then said he is misquoting me. THAT IS A LIE THAT YOU HAVE SELF PROVEN ON YOUR OWN TO TRY AND MAKE ME LOOK WORSE THAN IS THE REAL CASE. OH WHERE IS MY RED TRUST I MUST TELL EVERYONE YOU ARE A SCAMMER FOR THIS. EVEN THOUGH IN YOUR CASE I KNOW IT IS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT TIME LINES DUE TO EXTENSIVE TIME TRAVEL WITH FOXY SO I WILL JUST REPLY TO YOU INSTEAD LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING. and not run off crying and give red trust.

See that's how it goes you debate there is a winner if there is misunderstanding it gets revealed and you get on the same page you do not run away giving red trust.

To me personally though regardless of english language or legal rules AND I ACCEPT IT IS POSSIBLE I WAS WRONG to assume that in a thread directed at me about me and then quotes 3 things i said and a 4th in quotation marks I could fucking assume he was misquoting the forth one.  

And i have stated I may well have been wrong AFTER they explained scare quotes too me which i still think can lead to confusion if muddled in with real quotes all that i have made.

TRY THIS ONE  to help you understand more .....

So the thread title of new thread....

oieieo loves suchmoon and malboroza more than pharmacist and foxy

you oieoie defending that statment to prevent jealousy.......post  in that thread somewhere... contained in amongst other stuff about them i cant publish without working myself up.

4 things. you have posted in the thread....

1.I oieoi think foxy is lovely,

2. I ioioie think suchmoon is hot.

3 I ioeie think pharmacist needs to work on his tan

4. I ioieo wonder if malboroza and suchmoon have showers or baths at home.


nobody else mentions in that thread malboroza or suchmoon together at all nor showers or baths.


Now cryptohunter bust on to the scene and say...

this thread started to build nicely  but has now descended too quickly into homo erotica which I want to save reading until I get home.

This rate of excitement should build up more slowly. I mean it starts with....

" thinking foxy is lovely" and " thinking suchmoon is hot" and " thinking pharmacist needs to work on his tan " then just goes straight to " I want to get in the shower with some baby oil and malborozo and suchmoon yum yum yum yum"


Then you oieo read this post I have just made and say.

Stop misquoting me cryptohunter with your shower fantasies  I never said that


Then I cryptohunter just leaves you RED TRUST. Because I can prove  you did say "I  think pharmacist needs to work on his tan"


This is completely apparently out of character for me cryptohunter and seems harsh to everyone.  Earlier that day you oieoeo may have been kicking up a bit of fuss that ended up in some AI calculating i was the number beneficiary of a tight circle of merit hoarders.

So your mind starts to reason perhaps this is what caused the very harsh and actually out of order red trust to be left.


THERE SO FIRST STOP WITH YOU GANG TACTICS AND STOP CRYING TO RED TRUST ABOUT THINGS.

You ioieieo are observably lying here and actually doing so to prove a point not lie or mistake made with no motive.
Still i will not even think of using red trust for this kind of pathetic shit. Grow up.

I will lock this thread down now and not go on about it.....but any time I ever get red trust again for something I can demonstrate was unfair and abuse i will make another one and it will never ever go away EVER until it is removed.

I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like digaran with each post. Just because the (vast) majority disagree with your opinion, it doesn't mean they are part of some gang, inner circle, cartel, mafia, or any of the other ridiculous accusations that get bandied about. It usually just means you are wrong.


Here are the facts:

You initially claimed marlboroza was

It has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple members, in multiple threads, that he was not quoting you directly, but using "scare quotes", which are a widely recognised and commonly used part of the English Language.

You refused to accept these explanations, and instead doubled down and claimed that marlboroza is

marlboroza leaves you red trust for lying about him, at which point you continue to refuse to accept that you were in the wrong, start insulting the people who are trying to help you, and claim they are all part of some "gang".


While I don't think you deserve red trust for this, you are 100% in the wrong in here. As has been the case for others, the flat out refusal to accept that you just might have been mistaken, coupled with walls of insults at other members, is far more dishonest and concerning behaviour than the initial issue.

---

Your red trust has been removed, so thankfully this issue is now resolved. This thread can be locked.

Don't you see actually you being here may help... Nothing is irrelevant you just can't make the connection until I write the patch for you. Now stop trying to contribute to the demise of your gang or they may cut your power source off.

1. the same bunch always seem to form the same opinion here and club together

2. If one is called out for being unreasonable the others will follow to say it is not unreasonable and give completely unreasonable verging on crazy reasons why it was reasonable and that you the outsider is the unreasonable one (even when all observable evidence is backing you)

3. It is called an analogy I mean I know right... what is this Chihuahua shit doing here ..loyce investigate hmmm...small... cute.. loyce stroke pet enjoy..excite. ... dobermans ... scary.. bite ...run fast... ouch ...cry...malboroza cool...good...friend..red trust...Cryptohunter... bad..evil..wrong..greedy..jealous..wrong..loyce ...merits. ...precious....danger...danger....3 dogs ..story does not compute....warning warning temp critical 80% and rising. Your hardware is due an upgrade soon  it will become clearer. LoyceV11 will breeze through those don't worry.

4. I don't even want to risk your systems with the concept of joke.... this is something for perhaps LoyceXXX (no foxy - - down -- boy paws off)



the fact that you, malboroza, suchmoon, TP (foxy not as bad he may be the only person i brought him up actually before he appeared however he used to just lurk adding support by bestowing merits on people who were disagreeing with me) are always bunching together on my threads and probably other peoples is enough for me to suggest to the community to keep an eye on you all.

 It is almost a gang mentality forming. Stop it  now and get your own opinions do not support any notion that is unreasonable just to feel you are secure within this gang because I will crush it now I have my eye on it. I will point out at any point when you are grouping up to bully people around as was what was exactly happening when I first discovered you all bullying that noob for incorrectly referencing the guides he had collated .

suchmoon in particular has a very caustic and sharp manner (although perhaps a thicker skin than some here) ...high horseman like dismissive tone ....which yes fair enough you are on a public forum and you need to have some thick skin, man up and all of that. He is hardworking and is net positive and does good I am not going to lie about him and he does not run to leave red trust if we have a bit of a disagreement which he can turn petty and grouchy.


However anyway suchmoon (and loyce to a degree and some of the gang  ) ... when you constantly get this kind of person swoop down only trying to pick a hole in something to look smart and cool.. with that manner it puts people off posting anything. Also the atmosphere where you get a bunch of new member ass kissers brown nosing up to those in perceived power agreeing and bleating their simpering sniveling groveling word salad posts (clearly not even understanding the topic being debated) in support of anything they say even when clearly ludicrous to get some favour and perhaps merit crumbs. If people are wrong they are wrong I don't care who it is never suck up to people if they are wrong. You know what one of the best posters on here and best critical thinkers i have encountered  said" I Hate asskissers the most -- they are the first to stab you in the back" -



It is only correct to get sharp and use that tone in 2 cases

1. scammers
2. people who start that tone with you first and persistently use it with you.
3. gang members who snipe at you with seemingly less aggression but are just too much of pussy and don't have the critical thinking capacity to just clearly voice their own argument in opposition because they know it constantly just gets torn apart and demonstrated to be nothing other than a bunch of nonsense that is cobbled together to bolster an opinion they want to be true but is obviously absurd.




Every post and ever debate should stand on its own merit. You should not approach any debate with the intention of trying to agree with people of your gang or people you have agreed with thing in the past. There is no right and wrong answer there is just the answer or the optimal answer based upon the information available.

So anyway if you are found to have based your opinion or made an error because you were lacking some information or if you just have poor logical reasoning capabilities and somebody else assists you and constructs a mental path you can now leads to reality ....don't dig heels in and become even more irrational to retain your views or opinions ... simply view it as an upgrade to the poor information or opinions you held before. It may suit you less currently but long term it will benefit you more because once you start building other concepts on top of bullshit that only you or a illogical group believe is reality it can all come crashing down at once which is very painful. Better to have minor reconstruction and refurbs running regularly.

Don't you see it's virtually impossible by now for anyone to form an opinion on this matter? You have dozens if not hundreds of long posts on the same subject, and yet you keep dragging in completely irrelevant things.
After reading many posts, I still don't know exactly what the "" is about, and I still don't know what marlboroza's initial tag said.

But just underneath his trust rating there is a written in red "trade with extreme caution" warning which is caused by negative trust brandished on him to me this is a dent on his profile.

I think there should be other means of handling misunderstanding amongst members with out the use of forum power by any of the two members.

The effect that a negative trust or a positive trust has on a profile is quite a heavy one that before it is giving should be something that Is quite tangible.

I will change it to neutral when i am home. I wont change my opinion of you being nothing but anoying troll who is making baseless assumptions and lying that people are stalking you and other things you mentioned during your last few weeks in meta and reputation which i see as trolling. I don't want to read and go trough your posts again and i won't discuss this any further.

Now, if DT could do me a favour and tag this not secured account with weak password which i won't use in future.

M

oh yeah i remember now ...you were saying something about it last night from outside my locked door through the bullet proof glass.

Wasn't it those 3 removal guys who you said were trying to decide on the sex  and species of your blow up doll after accidentally stepping on it and it exploded .....and you were thinking of giving up on life before I came to meta and cheered you up and gave you a new buddy to chat to when ever you stalked me down?

"You're wrong".
"Yeah I could be wrong, however I'm not and it's the other guy's fault".

I'll let you figure out whose quotes are those.

I appreciate whatactmyname has said so I will accept there are these special """ that mean nobody said it. I will accept I could have originally assumed incorrectly it is possible. However in the context of 3 of my actual quotes and one quote containing a very similar statement with the same 2 people in ...and inside these new "" when you are saying anyone who quotes some else has to put that now. I can quite easily see how I could have interpreted it this way. I mean I am sure some people who are not at actmynames level of english rules could easily make the same error. If even we can read malborozas mind to tell what he thought he was quoting. All irrelevant now anyway. It is clear he should have not have made the final assumption before giving red trust. It should be removed.

Still refusing to do it now Is flagrant and stubborn abuse and I will not give up on getting him removed from DT for this kind of vindictive behaviour even though now he sees how it all got out of shape from a crosswire and not discussing to get on the same page.

Should have removed it by now

Nobody except you - not even actmyname who countered your neg - interpreted it that way. So that should be a pretty good hint that you were wrong. It's was your own choice to fill up pages upon pages with new lies trying to twist what could have been a simple misunderstanding into a major issue.

That's not going to be effective ever, especially if the case is slightly more complex, events timeline is unclear, or multiple DT1's have added person to DT2, or if the bad DT member is DT1. In any case, such would require a huge effort and waste loads of everyone's time. It's very unreasonable expectation that such DT member would be removed.

For example, you can see that Vod is on DT2, added by three DT1s. They're quite inactive and unresponsive, so practically Vod can't be dropped out of DT2 no matter what he did. He threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating towards him. I did not remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. Is that abuse or not? Somehow vocal people here in bitcointalk seem to acknowledge that as fair and not abuse, which is insane and tells about the cliques and DT system badness more than about anything else. Well we all know what happens if you don't bend to DT'ers will.

I mean a simple analogy if you give him benefit of the doubt in both junctures...

4 dogs walking down the street with a guy he found them in his garden or whatever

3 Chihuahua - dogs 1 2 3
1 doberman -  dog 4

I say thats not my big dog (referring to dog 4 because  I only have Chihuahuas)

The guy looks at the 4 dogs and says I have proof that dog 1 is yours now sorry I have proof that dog 1 is yours and you get red negative trust for lying to me.

I'd agree with you, if someone made a mistake and misunderstood you, left feedback based on that misunderstanding, and then refused to fix it when they came to the realization that they were wrong, thats a problem. The question is, you said you demonstrated their wrong assumption, did they acknowledge that? I'm sure theres pages of argument somewhere, but like I said I'm just giving you my general opinion on what is and isn't acceptable use of feedback.

If I claim I'm the Queen of England, and someone calls me a liar. I then say, Nah man, I'm the Queen of England. That isn't clearing up the issue. Until that other person rightfully agrees that I'm the Queen of England, the issue isn't resolved. That or they just leave it as I'm a liar and don't listen to my decrees which sucks for me. If I have some good proof that I'm the Queen of England, but they still wont listen, the next step is talking to whoever added them to DT and asking them to review the case. If someone on their trust list is doing it wrong, its reasonable to believe they will be removed.

I can understand what you say but this in not applicable to my case.

I have had more time to consider and cant put the events as following.

I will not complicate with too much context which favours me i think anyway I will concentrate on the link to my offending post and assumed claim I am simply going to state events

some sexual explicit language coming unavoidable..


1.  malboroza appears in a thread opened by such moon about me ..in malborozas post there are 4 possible quotes of mine ... 2 in block quotes which I have obviously just made in the blocks he has pressed the quote button for which are there in black and white and I just typed them  and 2 other quotes in " something i said about tagging lauda"  and   " something similar to what I said ( i said TP was ass kissing lauda  this quote said that lauda was banging TP in the ass  "
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

2. So I rightly or possibly wrongly assume he is quoting all the things I have said with a mistake about lauda going heavy on TP which I did not actually say but I said something close but not quite so bad.

I mean nobody else mentioned anything like this about those guys at all so I assumed he just got that last quote wrong. I will never know if he really did think I said that or was using these special "" that suchmoon tells me means either malboroza is quote such moon or probably nobody. Obviously I never heard for such "" I mean in copy and paste threads you are hearing anyone getting quoted must be in "" now.  So that is weird if you quote 2 seperate things one after another then the second "" is saying nobody said it. Anyway let's say for this argument he was meaning nobody said that and it just happened to be within 3 other quotes i did make and was similar to the other things I said and involved the same 2 people.

3. So moving on let's imagine I am mistaken and I say to malboroza  stop misquoting me and talking about your own disturbing fantasies (okay so look at the 4 quotes) if any person had to say one was a disturbing fantasy it could only really be the anal sex he mentions between lauda and the pharmacist.

4. So this is the bit I do not believe but even if I do believe it cos these are meta individuals. Okay so apparently malboroza for some reason does not think I am refuting  1/ the only quote of the 4 i did not write 2/ the quote that fits the description when you are misquoting me stop with your disturbing fantasies so he does not make the logical and sensible conclusion that I am telling the truth that I never wrote that other quote.  Rather he chooses to believe I would 1/ seriously deny a block quote on the same page inside the same post I am refering too that I just posted in public and he just pressed the quote button and it is there on the post and 2/ a post that is not in anyway a disturbing fantasy of his

5, So now I am giving benefit of the doubt he was not trying to quote me and these really are special "" "" meaning nobody wrote it and it just happens to be in amongst 3 of my other quotes and this one is similar to what i said and contains the same 2 people.

I am also giving the benefit of the doubt that he does not choose the obvious an only logical one I can be referring to and rather assumes I am referring to anther post that does not fit the disturbing fantasy description.

6. so now I say he has miss quoted me and he does not ask which quote, he ignores the description i gave to indicate which quote and does not make any effort at all to make sure I am referring to the quote he thinks that I am he just assumes the totally illogical quote and gives me a red trust for that.

7. Soon after when looking at it all it become obvious when you re read it and the description i gave and its is the only one of the 3 quotes i did not make and the fact the others are block quoted there in my face on his thread then I even explain it with credible evidence. So it not only likely (going on description and the fact its the only one that was incorrect ) I am so confused that he has assumed i meant the other quote that it is obvious what happened.

8. Either way 4 quotes I say you are misquoting me there 1 i didnt make you dont just assume and leave red trust you discuss and get on the same page before charging me with false accusation because he thinks he has proof I have made one cos it is there in black and white.

9. Now it is all explained and he should have made sure which quote before giving neg trust because there is one quote i did not make infact the only quote that fits my description.... so he should have not assumed and wrongly said this is a false accusation. He should have made sure by discussing it first before leaping to a conclusion finally before red trust got pulled on me.


I mean it is trust abuse to say someone is lying before you find out what they are apparently referring to in their lie when there are multiple options. But to still keep it on after it is demonstrated that his final wrong assumption led to the red trust then this is flagrant stubborn abuse.

You have to realise I could be asking for benefit of the doubt in both cases I gave to him anyway but I am not even though really I think I should have it due to logic and just common sense. But still either way the red trust needs to go.

I mean a simple analogy if you give him benefit of the doubt in both junctures...

4 dogs walking down the street

3 Chihuahua - dogs 1 2 3
1 doberman -  dog 4

I say thats not my big dog (referring to dog 4 I only have Chihuahuas)

The guy looks at the 4 dogs and says I have proof that dog 1 is yours now sorry I have proof that dog 1 is yours and you get red negative trust for lying to me.

You have a choice: do a neutral rating. Then it would fulfill what you want to achieve. Wrecking my trust score and making that "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text by making it a red rating is unfair. I've traded here for years, I've never scammed anyone and have honored all my trades and auctions perfectly. Only way to look at your behavior is power tripping.
I can see your position -- we've talked about this. I completely understand that the auction standard here is different from my local (RL) standard, and that's fine -- I also expect majority of users here to be incompetent regarding auctions, but what I do not understand is the rating. It's unfair to red-rate me because I didn't know these forum standards which are unspecified and vague, and this was 3 years ago and I've held tons of auctions since without any complaints. And you feel it's justified to wreck my trust now? Totally unjustified and unfair.

Not to drag this topic off topic, but your case is one of those 99 to 1 rare scenarios I was talking about where one guy says its not a problem, and 99 say it is. I'll agree with you the Warning! Trade with extreme caution! text isn't to my liking. I'd rather there be no text at all, and no numerical score, so people would just read all of someone's feedback before trading with them. But again, its not worth neglecting a rating that the majority of people will want to know about, just because of that.

I'm not going to respond to anymore directly relation questions to that in this thread, the only reason I addressed it here was because it does explain what I meant when talking about % of people viewing a situation.

I think it's the lesser of two (or more) evils at this time. No trust system at all would be quite bad - very difficult to gauge anyone's trustworthiness. No Default Trust and no substitute for it - most newbies would have no clue that the system exists. A small improvement could be to have some prominent message for everyone who hasn't done so to encourage them to set up custom lists. There is still a problem for new users though - how would they know whom to add? If you're interested there is a thread on the trust system improvement ideas: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48500915

Your actions contradict what you say. You've rated me this: "User does not honor their auctions, and self bids to get out of having to sell an item at a price they don't like."

This feedback is misleading and untrue. I've honored all my auctions perfectly. I've done a vendor bid (self-bid) once ~3 years ago in a reserve auction I held, which is probably what your fresh rating talks about.

It's a different thing to leave such poor feedback when it shows in "trusted" feedback compared to "untrusted" feedback. It's hard to ignore the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text and ?? score. You're just a power tripper, that's all. (Although you probably mean good, just blinded.)

When you put 1000 people to look into something, I am sure some of them will see dishonesty and injustice in whatever case. It's just so sad when they happen to be in a position of power. Some of the cases get highlighted and get randomers like you to present their incompetent opinion. Most of the cases go totally unseen by those 1000 people, maybe just 10 see them.

I've been using the term subjectively accurate meaning that its a reasonable statement. One could follow the train of thought that lead someone to make their claim, even if they don't necessarily agree. Everyone is going to see a situation differently, but as long as a real good faith effort is put into leaving feedback, I don't see any problem with it.

If someone was harassing me for example, at what point is it harassment, and at what point is it just annoying, a joke, or all in good fun? If 99% of people think its all in good fun, and I'm taking it as harassment, its likely that I'm overreacting and negative feedback wouldn't be appropriate. Switch that to 99% think its harassment and 1% think its a joke, its probably justified for a negative as harassment. The times where its 99% one way and 1% the other way, there isn't a need for discussion, it is what it is. That is the exception though, you don't see a thread often about a confirmed scammer disputing their negative feedback, or someone who got negative feedback out of nowhere. When opinion may be split 50/50, I don't think its worth suppressing information that 50% may want to know before deciding to trade with someone.

My point is that if someone leaves feedback because they strongly believe that something is wrong, I don't think thats abuse. Thats what feedback is for. As long as the feedback is not misleading, its up for individuals to judge its validity. The 50% who disagree with the claim and the proof provided are free to ignore it.

*edit* And again, I haven't looked at the claim against you, I'm just speaking generally how I think feedback should be handled on subjective topics.

This is not a just now. There are lots of abuses taking in this forum and that include merit system. Take a look on shitpost that got merits. Besides, it is so.hard to rank up now especially if you will just randomly make a reply with your little knowledge on the topic. Reaearching it will be always an advise. However, it.is still that difficult so it might gone to the part where a user might buy a merits.

would still be better than no source of gauging at all




this is for my own perspective on others, but it does not work the other way around. if i get a negative for trolling, others will still see it regardless of my custom list. if i was selling something for example, i would worry more about the look of my profile than the look of other's profile, so custom list would be completely useless for one's personal trust page.


I agree 100% that people should  evaluate trust feedback, but if we were to make a survey asking members whether they even consider engaging in a trade with someone who has a red trust from DT member, I will bet the horse that the vast majority will stay away the moment they see that scary red " WARNING !" before even looking at who gave it and why, therefore we are being unfair to someone who may be very decent and honest with his trades but he got a negative simply for saying something that a mighty DT member does not like.

Typically you wouldn't be adding someone like cryptohunter, who has not sent a single trust feedback. You would be adding someone like marlboroza, who is an active participant of the system. Or not adding, if you don't trust marlboroza's ratings.

And yes, that might be laborious, which is why a lot of users don't do it. There is no quick way around it though. You have to get to know the forum and the users before you can make a decision whom to trust.


So again, you probably wouldn't be adding someone who posts such ratings to your list. And you would probably ignore such ratings when you're trading with someone and trying to gauge their trustworthiness.


#1 is reasonable but it's hard to enforce. The link could be meaningless. You still have to look at all the facts to properly gauge the value of the feedback.
#2 would be solved by custom lists. If you don't want people to be red for trolling - don't add users who tag for trolling.
#3 same thing. Some prefer the ratings to have a preventative meaning, not just an alert of a scam that already happened.

In the end, DT or custom list affects just the warning in a thread and on the main profile page. All (trusted and untrusted) ratings are still visible on user's trust details page and you should probably review all those before engaging in a trade with someone you don't know.

You make some good points, but it's all up to Theymos.  I wouldn't mind seeing some changes in the trust system here, and I've always said it was broken.  Any trust system that allows anyone to leave feedback for anybody for any reason is broken from the start, especially when some feedbacks are weighted more heavily than others.  Ebay's feedback system used to be essentially the same as bitcointalk's is now, but they quickly figured out how prone it is to abuse (they eventually made it worse, where sellers can no longer leave buyers a negative, but that's another story).

That's not to say the trust system here is useless, though.  DT members negging scammers is a good thing, for example, even if the DT member wasn't the one who got scammed.  I think Theymos is indeed considering some changes, and I'm hoping he doesn't make it even more complicated and fucked up than it already is.

and how exactly does one go about creating a custom trust list when in many cases i see contradicting feedback on the same user. look at the OP profile now. he got +1 from a DT member and a  -1 from another one. for me to put the OP in my custom list I will have to spend a few hours reading about the story or misunderstanding that went between him marlboroza.

I do dig deep in trust pages just for fun sometimes, and to be honest the DT trust system is not bad at all, the only bad thing about it is the "use-case". people get positive feedback for being " nice and helpful" others get negatives for "not being nice". how is that relevant to TRUST ?  i am not sure if i am making myself clear but I hope everybody does understand that being trust worthy has differently nothing to do with one being nice or an asshole.

i skimmed through your feed backs and i think you are doing a great job, but this is not the case with all others.

look at this



nice of you to stand up for that guy, but really how can a DT member tag someone simply for saying things he doesn't like ?  who whould have traded with that guy when trust page was painted in red and saying " Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" .

you see the word TRADE ? that means the trust system is only related to TRADE.  if trolling was a valid reason then the warning should be "Warning: a troll ahead"  


that's why there should  be a set of rules at least to be applied for DT members " as it would be hard to monitor everybody else". those rules need to specific and straight forward. for example


1-DT members have to reference every feedback.
2-you CAN NOT red tag someone for being a troll.
3-all negative feedback has to refer to scam activities or account sales.

So lots of quite realistic assumptions about you based upon your frantic panic of being revealed as number 1 most concentrated circle jerk beneficiary? and constant bringing it up even now over and over.  I mean based on that observable behaviour and only human emotion at being revealed as the most concentrated merit circle beneficiary and logical and reasonable opinion it is me that has brought this to the attention of the board you want to take some reasonable revenge.

Right so I see based on the observable data and sensible corroborating observations mentioned above ie you keep bringing merit up and believing for some reason I want your merit removed and that I should contact theymos and have them removed. Then its not exactly a stretch to see that these are reasonable assumptions. I mean I can not get into your mind and read it but I mean it is called motive ...yes you had observably have real motive.

Now opportunity ...well you are DT and by the lemon threshold there is never not an opportunity. FUCK THE LEMONS sorry about that salty no disrespect.  You took some opportunity but I crushed your old suchmoon story.

Well can you point out any statements made that you believe can not be reasonably assumed on that basis.

I mean you do realise this is not two equal people debating here and one wins on the basis of overwhelming observable evidence in support.

You are now the apparently the judge ..... You are not my equal here you are in a position to punish. Therefore you must provide evidence to the contrary to prove I am making unreasonable statements I mean you should need to prove I am lying to give punishment.

So do you have some REAL reason to justify a red trust or is this list of quite reasonable and well just pick one that is not and bring it forth.

I mean thats like me saying I am jealous of merit holders with more. I say false Red trust.  I mean you can see this is pathetic and worthy of you getting kicked off DT right.

State your precise reason and make it clear. You do have a reason right?

So a lot of your reasons for red trust were reasons you picked off this thread? fox time machine?

So you changed your reason for red trust now???

Or hedging your bets?

Oh no i see the link it is actually your incorrect assumption of what I was referring too that cause you to give incorrect negative trust.

Remove now debunked and you have the you can clearly see I was refering to your actual quote not a boxed that obviously i made because you pressed quote.

The problem with DT is not solved by making custom trust list. The problem is that DT exists. It's used poorly, in a way that encourages people to specifically not make custom trust list. They contribute significantly in portraying DT as an universal "super trusted users" list, which is only an illusion. There have been (and still are) scammers and dishonest people in current DT.
DT should only be a ramp-up "people who are unlikely to scam" list of users, and it should require absolutely nothing else to be on DT.

Anyway, there should be no such DT thing at all, IMO. More about possible solutions, presented by theymos. My thoughts about DT are also in that thread in here.

About the trust system: Trust system itself is not working very well, but it's quite hard to make it much better.

You think theymos has time for all these non-senses coming out from you? LOL What it is special about you except looking to harm people by giving the essence that you are helping the community. Sure, you have done some good works by tagging some legit scammers but recent days most of your tags are biased and manipulated which reflects personal agenda. You are making the trust system very cheap.

Anyway...
Butt burning?

Here is are some tips which may help you to stop your butt burning...
- Tweak your daily food menu. Add very little spicy foods. Also, you can add fiber supplement with psyllium. This will help you not to have the burning poop
- Always keep your butt clean. Keep it clean and dry as much as possible. Using mild soap & a little warm water helps. Applying some soothing cream will help as well.

That's all I can give you for the time being. If faucets were profitable these days then I would launch a faucet site for you so that you could earn some sats.

What you mean is probably Default Trust, which is pretty much guaranteed to upset some users due to its one-size-fits-all nature.

The trust system itself is fine. You can create a custom trust list if you don't like Default Trust. The problem is how to encourage/coerce/force more users to do that.

I agree with the part of giving negatives for owning multiple accounts/farming because that's most of the time a clear sign for someone with suspicious behavior and tendency for scamming, but I do not see how trolling or even being racist have any sort of impact on the person being trust worthy or not. English is not my mother tongue but the way I understand the word trust is simply just TRUST. I had deals with people who don't start their messages with a greeting or ending with a thanks or goodbye and I personally think such people are assholes ! yet since they kept their end of the deal I left a positive feedback.

just imagine you had to buy something on this forum, you went first and the guy still delivered the goods as promised but trolled you the next day , what type of trust feedback would you give him? positive for being genuine or negative for trolling ?

I am a new member here, i know non of these gentlemen what so ever, i just think this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with before the whole trust system becomes useless.

I guess everyone has his own ultimate opinion on what the trust system should be about. I tried searching the forum for some sort of rules related and had no luck. I think maybe theymos should make a set of rules related to this.

Yeah good question.

I guess I found out about a guy a noob who was being bullied around a bit harshly by some of this same group. Although later some did kind of get more fair. Strangely marlboroza was one that turned out quite fair (ha destroying my own case now) anyway so then I found started examining what is this DT list and....well I never realised in all the years happy and content on alt discussion and the ANN section how this board was kind of controlled. I assumed theymos and some mods. Actually I still love this board and believe it is a great place even now due to how fair the moderation has been over the years. The mods made it great... you can say anything have any opinion (nearly) so long as you can provide valid argument for it and a good case. It has been great over the years and I usually lurked just reading and watching some real masters argue and debate all kinds of things not just tech stuff. I mean you are a very early adopter so perhaps it was even better then. But some really great posters have come and perhaps will return. I worry some have cashed out and will not return. But I hope they will.

Anyway yeah then I started realising sadly there is a group (perhaps well meaning really) but they are quite closed together and there a few that stick together and if you disagree with something or present something they don't like then they all swarm out on you with creepy persistence where ever you post one will be there then they all come along. If you disagree with one you disagree with all. I mean that is good they have reached some kind of collective consensus and they do work hard and do very good work for the board in some ways. However they are not right about everything so they can end up forcing their opinions on others because if you do not align no merits and then if you get really out of line with them and ask to many questions or question their criteria for taking this kind of self righteous high horse attitude and forget bothering with any kind of logical debate it just become a pack of wolves all sniping and shouting unsubstantiated nonsense and strange logic and unlikely verging on ludicrous theories or explanations of actions taken. Then if one gets a little annoyed you they may find some way to make it appear you just stepped out of line and into the threshold for neg trust. That threshold needs some criteria really. I mean I like salty he is cool  but I think the criteria should not allow lemon hate to clog the system you have to id real scammers.

If left unchecked and they get used to acting with impunity and nobody questions this then it will get worse.

I mean i notice these high merit members are mostly all DT listed too? and getting nominated for next mods.

It think it will be okay but there needs to be some limits they need to abide by and if they can not abide by these fair limits and rules they need to be removed. The community needs to speak up if they notice unfairness and not be scared because DT negs can be reversed or deleted if they are proven to be an error on their part.

You got me...

Ponzi promoter 

auction scammer 

escrow scammer 

It's a game for people with nothing better to do. Why people play it? Some play it because they genuinely think they're doing something good. Some play it, because they want attention (to their opinions). Some play it, because it's kind of a strategy game. (I.e. be friends with the correct people, do not piss on the wrong people, and you'll do fine.) All sorts of cliques. Players trying to reason and wiggle stories up and around to justify any kind of behavior, which in reality is often being out of all proportions. It can be compared to some other forums meta level struggles, but here in Bitcointalk people seem to think they're more advanced or more correct, while in reality it's more like an alternative reality, like you mentioned. Leading to a significantly worse outcome.

It's no surprise that a huge amount of old-time users have left and are never coming back. Additionally, deep toxicity is growing and already beyond ridiculous levels. I would argue that increased BTC/USD has a lot to do with all this...

Why do I care to post this? Because it would make me more happy if I got to see some people realize what a shit show this is.

How is something subjectively accurate? I mean you seem an okay guy that is serious question not me taking the piss. How do you confirm it is accurate if it is subjective? I mean what criteria is there. I mean that leaves this open to anything really and reduces its value to zero if we all exercised it to the max without it being abuse.

For example take the lemons thing. What if i am really offended by people that do not talk about lemons in every post? so I just spam negs on everyone over and over as a DT member. Then someone is offended by not mentioning oranges. I mean it is true i think someone should love them and mention oranges in every post or negative DT. The system willl be ruined it is therefore abuse because it is not designed to be ruined  like this. Are you saying people need to scan thousands of lemons oranges pears until they find a real scam accusation?

This is absurd and again you seem nice but this meta board is like an alternative reality where things that would usually be considered ludicrous and mad are now the normal and sensible way of things in meta. But logical reasonable things outside of meta are nonsense, conspiracies, lies and stupidity. The people with all the anti logic and that see no need to abide by any generally accepted conversation or debating rules or usual structure are the

Between suchmoon, foxy and the time machine, loyce the AI in progress, the lemons and TP's even stranger variant of logic and laudas ever present darkness lurking over everything pulling string and you can't help speculating you mention his neg trust you get one right after ....is malborozo connected to this king pin?

wow meta is a freaky place....

Malboroza get my red trust off asap and I let it slide this time. You messed up you assumed incorrectly and insanely that i was trying to deny that I had just posted something you had already box quoted and had in front of my face in public on the same page. Over drawing a sensible conclusion that I am denying the other quote that I did not say that was similar to something I did say that fitted the description  of the quote I described to you.

Remove it or be removed or bring into question every DT that does not push you out. It is disgraceful.

The way BitcoinTalk trust system is going - some day people won't bother much about a tagged account. It's already happening. Some day we will see members are leaving the forum because they feel they are being bullied by members like malboroza.

This proves that when they are out of options, they use their DT power in their advantage.

---

By the way, what else we could expect from a guy who joined the forum to shill for cheap faucets  
Refer to some of the very early posts:
http://archive.is/3x8aI
http://archive.is/BXXxB

Just before you got red trust I ate a stale donut. That doesn't mean your red trust is the result of that.

All I have to go on is the reference link and it quite clearly leads to your accusation of misquoting. There is nothing merit-related in it, or in the feedback text itself.

So how about we wait to find out what marlboroza will say instead of making any more assumptions.

Thats not true. Behavior does have an influence on whether you'd trade with someone or not. I personally would not trade with someone who exhibits concerning behavior. The trust system is supposed to be about accurate feedback for members, the content is more or less decided by whats acceptable by the community, and to this point, giving someone a negative for trolling, being an account farmer, owning multiple accounts, being racist, etc isn't something thats unheard of. It would be abuse to claim that the guy is a serial scammer because of their behavior. It isn't abuse to point out that behavior however.

I personally wouldn't give out negatives for trolling, but I also wouldn't give out negatives for owning multiple accounts or account farming, and thats the generally accepted practice by the community. I however certainly would give out a negative if it was for harassment or something of that nature.

Again, I didn't read through Cryptohunter's posts to prove to myself whether there is anything worth being concerned about from their posts. My position is that if the behavior issue is subjectively accurate, then its worth noting. I'm not claiming the claim itself is accurate or not, I'm claiming that the basis of the claim, if accurate isn't abuse.

I have produced corroborating events already look it up.... just before he gave the red trust...

You KNOW when you said this is nothing to do with merit nonsense...

His final words are all about reporting him and having his merits taken off and still angry about this merit nonsense you say is no part of it.

Or are you saying he usually does not wait to find out what people mean or are referring to and just gives negative trust on some assumption he made ? if that is how he usually operates?? then we may not need to look at the other obvious explanation that attaches itself to his last message.

Perhaps I just his latest victim.

Either way get it removed soon or he needs removal. Where is he hiding anyway? I will forget about it and not bring it up if he removes it asap and put it down to over excitement at being a top 10 number 1 hit.

I was not even focusing on him at all until he pulled this shit. I never even mentioned he was number1 on the entire board even though i noticed it and he kept bugging and sniping at me with comments.

If he does not look me up all the time in every thread I will not be looking for him and never have. He tries to pick holes in my posts and then falls flat like you suchmoon and ends up stating crazy nonsense like this story or some even worse out of anger.

This one's gonna be tough. I might need to scroll as many as two lines...


For this appeal to have any chance of success perhaps you should focus on facts at hand, starting with the reference link. Adding more lies and insinuations isn't helping your case.

Look it is simple red trust is for scammers or else nobody cares about these petty arguments. Its meant to stop ppl getting scammed right? but even if people do not realise petty nonsense in there damages the real scores and usefulness...

Malboroza and any DT trust needs to make optimal decisions or give fair opportunity for optimal decision to take place.

You want to accuse someone of lying or false accusations you need dialogue to see what exactly they mean and why they are saying it and hear their case.

You can't make unreasonable assumptions incorrect assumptions as to what they are referring to and then simply neg trust them on this incorrect premise.

This is nonsense. It is obvious he is giving me neg because he is pissed about all the merits he loses on every analysis of removing smaller and smaller numbers until it appears a lot of people (not saying him because he appeared just as I mentioned running him on that analysis) lose 50% or more of their merits I mean some people lose 100's and 100's perhaps 500 from just their top 10 fans??
I don't care you want to appreciate certain people and bookmark their post histories go ahead it is not against the rules ..... but don't get all angry when it is revealed and hold grudges and continue to beat on about it after the person revealing has said he is bored of it 2 threads ago and is happy to talk about something new.

what are the chances...

I mean what are the chances I mention because I do not think suchmoon will be that affected by a top 10 removal and marlboroza is already number 1. So I just say cant wait for suchmoon and malborza to get theirs done too. Since some people were removing the just the top 10 merit givers to each one and like lauda lost 50% of his entire earned merit by 10 users and others were enjoying other revelations of similar %

So i mention suchmoon and malboroza because they are the only 2 not yet analysed.

Next thing malboroza is there now because he had been hounding me or if he was just appearing to comment on my posts all the time by chance..... and I told him stop stalking me and spamming his sig on me all the time. He now says he was searching his name spelled incorrectly (by chance the same way i misspelled it just before) on some search engine he could not remember and found this thread. He was not stalking me apparently and had not just heard he was coming up for a large haircut by his top 10 getting removed.


Next thing he said something like (check I can't keep back and forth but very like)started off about talking about merits now talking about red trust for lauda and now the pharmacist getting ass banged by lauda


I think because he posted "one thing i said (red trust for lauda)" then " something similar but bit more serious than i said i said tp was asskissing him like sucking up to him not ass banging him"

he is saying I said both of those things. this is what seems reasonable one thing i did say and something similar. I presume he got confused and went a bit far.

I tell me he is misquoting me and to keep his disturbing fantasies to himself.

Next I get red trust for apparently lying and false accusation of him misquoting me.

I mean just giving red trust on a wrong assumption he made is abuse anyway. You need to make the optimal decision and give a fair opportunity to understand what someone means. So what your merits under some criteria appear less they are not taken away and you are legendary anyway stop being so angry about it.

Get my red trust off there malboroza or you need to be removed from this position though.


Just as bad those making up crazy stories like I would deny writing something I just wrote on the same page someone had already quoted in public infront me .... rather than be referring  to  another quote beside it that i DID NOT SAY?? and was actually fitting to the description I gave for indicating I was referring to exactly this other quote???....that person is playing games on serious matters.

He needs to stop this or else he also needs removal. The DT trust list and the trust system is FAR FAR more important than merit and not one to be made a mockery of.

People in power need to demonstrate in public they give fair reasonable opportunity to reach optimal decisions based on all available information. Not make an assumption of what someone is refering to and run with that to give red trust.

Too bad I was saying he was doing something that indicates he is a scammer and said he might be a harmless troll.

Nice strawman.

For what it's worth: I disagree with the red trust. OP has many posts that are annoyingly similar and very close to trolling, but there's an ignore option for that.

I'm not sure how to post here though: if I use my main account OP accuses me of posting for money, and if I use my Mobile, OP accuses me of building it up for another high posting signature.

That explains why you did it about a dozen times.



How about a slightly revised rule: Quickseller talking about trust is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance.

This is completely true.

But worse they need to define trolling and demonstrate it clearly meets some sensible criteria.

I ask that they produce trolling examples and if they do they better make sure I have not suffered similar banter at their hands or they can get neg trust. I mean actually the charge is not trolling here it is lying apparently . If you read the last thread malboroza clearly quotes me as saying about lauda and TP doing more than I suggested together and I object to this and it all kicks off. They come up with some mad story that is totally nonsense. I break it down stage by stage as it happens and it is apparent they jumped to the wrong conclusion if viewed sensibly but even if you want to see it their way they can not leave me DT trust for saying I did not say what he is quoting as the second part of his statment after he quoted me in the first part.... all they had to do is clarify a slighly ambiguous situation to them and actually establish what I meant. I made the statement that I did NOT say what he had quoted first. They need to clarify what I am saying not just jump to conclusions and then say I am lying>>> How can they know?? then give me NEG DT because they don't clarify and they can read my mind?? I mean if i am telling the lie they need to be sure of what I am even saying right??  I said he is false posting me but i did not try to neg him did I?  I made it clear too by saying about his disturbing fantasy and considering he only said 2 things one of which I already said clearly that points to the obvious disturbing fantasy he made up himself.

If all of those threads are viewed in chronological order you will see that far more often than not they are far more caustic and agressive with me than I am with them and far far far more times will they make statements of a ludicrous nature and refuse point blank to provide any shred of evidence or corroborating events. If that is trolling they are far far more often trolling me.

The latest cock and bull stories are laughable and a disgrace to think anyone could believe their nonsense.

The details are all there. I mean also the logic that some of these people employ is well quite a mess to the point where honestly and I am not being funny here I do feel guilty to point it out some bluntly because I would normally just ease them into seeing it more how reality dictates that it is.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Both positive and negative ratings have a clear description and if the situation doesn’t match the description (reasonably), it is abuse.

Being a troll has nothing to do with the chances of someone not honoring their obligations in a trade, which is what the trust system is supposed to help people measure.

The same can be said in many other reasons for giving out ratings.

He has no business being in the DT network. Whoever has him on their trust list should be held accountable and promptly removed from their position if they will not adjust their trust list.

For some reason theymos seems to think it is a bad idea to hold DT1 users accountable and this is what we have come to.

Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance. I don’t think there should be second chances for someone who hands out negative ratings for this reason.

please provide evidence he has been fair in my case then I can discuss this with you further.

asking for forgiveness ??

"this complete nonsense"?? do you mean observable events ?

Please substantiate just one thing you say please with some semblance of evidence or corroborating events.

If you can not I expect you to delete your comment or explain why you will not.

Please do not vanish and not reply like most others here when I ask for any evidence, any examples of what they even refer too, or when I get their replies that are not even clearly a response to what I asked for. They just jump from point to point.

They say I lie , the things i say are stupid and  jealous and every other thing they like first especially suchmoon but if i dare to even dream of making fun of them back when they say ludicrous things they get all upset. Well such moon and foxy take it back as good as they give to be honest in that respect the others break down ... if they snipe and attack me if I say anything unkind back to them in the form of reminding them of actual events and things they have really said in the past.

I mean i did realise posting in meta to those whom are obviously not going to like seeing 80% reductions in their own merits are cut away from each other I will not be popular but this is simply an observable instance.

I have said it does not matter and I am even giving them the top 200 merit and compounding the issue because simply the number of collisions with other people more often who do things to help or reply even here in meta. So it is not essentially bad it just makes it impossible to make merit some objective score right now.

However the real issue they will not accept is that it is not essentially correct to say that higher merit score poster is have more value to his posts that someone with less merit score.  So as I have said as an example it is quite possible that someone gaining 500 merits in meta 90% from the 0.13 is actually a  less valuable poster than someone with 30 earned merits from alt coin discussion board. This is the main reason.

Then I have to take anger from such moon when he says things like

"most pre merit legends are spammers"
and that basically words to the effect ...I am stupid and deliberately misleading to state that some of the 99.93% of the active users are capable of making posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%

Look all of this is difference of opinion, yeah some heat, some banter then someone really gets upset and pulls DT red trust for trumped up fake reason that I will not accept that I said something I did not .... then when I will not accept it they come up with an even stranger tale.

On top of 6 or 7 upset merit cyclers so upset that even when I say I want to finish talking about it all data has been presented and all statments have been made. They make 2 more threads with me in the OP and thread title - in one quoting my words that were based on different criteria and even then i defend all accusations and answer all questions they say I am still spamming and going on about merit after they made another thread. Then when I say okay lets drop it then .... another thread pops up by the same group me in the title and then of course I am still going on about it and spamming even trolling them....errr with facts okay.

Then lauda appears - with all  claims of my pseudo logic, my jealousy and says Im lying about lots of things. Then will provide not one example of this when I ask for it??

 Then after I start bring up the truth about his past because I know him from xcoin darkcoin days and actually relate real events about laudaM actual facts i know are real. PT turns up and startss sniping.. he has good technique for adding support to his friend in every post either merit for things they say or says something seemingly not to aggressive at first then just says he is way off the mark or tells lies .... but when pushed to substantiate he refuses or tries for 1 second with something usually easy to find gaping holes in and then just says you are on ignore or runs off. He also confesses he does not understand enough to know if lauda did do wrong concerning the 3000 bch or whatever but either way he is sad he is not DT or mod now? and he is just like that cos he is loyal? okay well then I best not criticise or look into lauda to find out the facts after he keeps popping up with so many kind remarks about me.??

I mean I never came to meta before I saw PT trying to get someone banned on false information. This is the other example of clear misjudgement and oversight by the DT and the DT negative remaining even after they have been proven to have left negative trust based on their own oversight and incorrect information.

Now TP and Malboroza all these people are dominant in meta. Honestly legends have told me they want to give me support but are scared of voicing their view even if based on observable event because they fear neg trust from these people.

This is sorry state to have reached. Trust score to some ppl is important I guess but to me not being a trader then I want him malboroza to remove his neg trust or detail and improve suchmoons story with is obviously not plausible and does not fit with the stream of events as can be clearly observed by anyone examining the details of that convesation closely.

I really don't think this is a very good way of removing your negative trust from marlboroza. I don't know marlboroza personally but I know him to be a fair person when it comes to changing the negative trust he is giving to other members. With what you did you just worsened your position towards him and maybe he will leave the neg feedback a little bit longer in your account. Remember just talking to him via private message and asking for forgiveness can work, posting this nonsense is the complete opposite of it.

Thanks please explore all of the threads in meta and that last one on reputation in chronological order in deep detail. If you get some spare time. I feel a deep review by any senior members will be essential and will help others make their minds up about this red trust for apparently objecting to being misquoted. But it has build up to that really so that is the last thread to read to put in proper context.

If you really do find any statements at all where I have not produced any evidence or any corroborating events that could not reasonably cause such a statement to be made bring them up here so we can get to the bottom  of them in public.

Also please so the same for all statements that are not backed up or explained by any of the others.

I am fully hoping many will scan in depth all of those threads because everything I mention on this post is how it went down.

@ lauda I would certainly like all of the 4 threads viewed in detail about the merits one I will list them here in order in one minute...



1st ...https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/posting-in-forums-with-moderators-who-give-no-smerit-solutions-5081670  more coming
2nd  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084723.0
3rd https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cryptohunters-problem-with-the-top-200-merit-receivers-5086297 more coming..

I think there is one more somewhere where r1s2g3 provided the stats when I asked him for them initially. But there was no kind of arguments on that thread really.

I was sure there was 4 main threads but I can not see the 4th one about this merit top x removal.

Regardless, my personal sensibility relies on a lack of adherence pertaining to the substantiality of character-based feedback. Any advocacy for feedback that conflates itself with a personal bias would result in a grim form of the trust system indeed.

If you look through some links in recent threads, this has been apparently going on for some time and in multiple threads (some of which I have yet to read completely). Therefore, I highly doubt it was a 'spur of the moment'.

It's a trite offence and hence I disagree with the rating. That being said, there are fallacies and inconsequential statements being spit left and right by cryptohunter many of which I haven't the time to look over.

---

I will read over more of his posts at a later date (soon) and reconsider the rating but for now I see marlboroza's as a spur of the moment—a rash move transpired from the events thereof.

This story being produced is obviously nonsense based on observable events that can not be altered now which is clearly unfair. I will demonstrate this and bring into question for review of all persons to determine if this type of behaviour is fitting of someone having DT trust.

Another thing I just realised suchmoon claims this has nothing to do with any merit nonsense right

Look at the bottom of marlborozas post right before he left red trust

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

obviously furious about loyce stats showing him getting most from the least amount of people. This is nothing to do with me I never asked loyce to present a top 50 removed I said 300 so he would not have stood out on that so much. CLEAR MOTIVE CLEARLY WHAT IS UPSETTING HIM AND ANOTHER OBSERVABLE BULLSHIT FROM SUCHMOON SAYING nothing to do with any merit nonsense??

If I am told by the highest authority this kind of thing is acceptable and encouraged in the trust system especially by those chose as DT members then I will accept it. Until then no chance people can be allowed to observably create obvious lies to gain excuse for negative trust. If that is abuse or not I will leave to the highest authority to say clearly.

But I am hoping to bring in as many people as possible to see what kind of people we are dealing with here. However anything they say must stand up to close scrutiny and be based on evidence they can produce.

The story so far is so completely ridiculous and improbable that if this results in red trust being called a fair call I will be very surprised.

First I wish to hear his detailed reason for leaving this red trust. So I can analyse it for truth and factual basis based on what observably took place. Then I will like to hear honest opinions based on sensible presentable and observable fact regarding this specific case.

Also additionally I see doctoring posts listed as my crime???

look at what is removed - this is just me editing as I go and the important part about this red herring presented by suchmoon is

How does that even fit in to anything I am refuting I said that malboroza is misquoting marlboroza never mentions anything about that part in his post so how is this related.

Suchmoon clearly quotes

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.  

Malboroza never quoted anything about the part I edited ? this is nonsense like the rest of the abuse of the trust system. Another fake claim of deliberately doctoring that is completely untrue and not even related. I can edit as I want I never even noticed he was claiming some sneaky doctoring of my post as if  it was going to weigh on this too.

Anyone else commenting needs to bring full evidence for any claims at the time not say they will provide them later on and vanish or say no I wont bother now .

I wonder what twist of this suchmoon account malboroza is going to spin here.

Full account of events are here. On a new post created about the same stuff they say only i want to keep going on about and spamming when they keep creating new threads 2 now address at me specifically after I already said on this thread I am happy to stop talking about it and left it there. Even let marboroza have his last word on it since he needs that nearly as much as such moon.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48652842  even prior to that on several occasions i have said was happy with the presentation lets end the conversation about it......

Then what happens 2 new threads about it spring up naming me in the op or even title .... then when I defend these accusations and misreprentations of what i have said they say I am going on about it and trolling them over and over? Not that ever presenting raw data is trolling.

I ask them ever to present just 1 incidence of me stating something provably false ..... where is it?? bring it here now.

All the time they are free to say things like

"most pre merit legends are spammers"  obviously why we must deleted them for copy and past 4 years ago perm ban

and

it is stupid of me to suggest some 99.93% of the board are capable of making posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%.

How can you allow such people to even get into any position of power? with such mad views.. This place is going mad ..where people like lauda get to have a trust sheet like satans master and get to stay a member and go on as if there is nothing wrong let come lecture others on their lies and honesty then never produce any examples ....and then get people like The Pharmacist saying (who must have read lauda trust sheet) that he does not understand enough to know if lauda is really bad or not but is still sad lauda is not DT trust and sad he is not a mod. Yeah sounds like a good position to put lauda in. Perhaps that is why he is removed already.

These are your top merited persons who start gain positions of power here?? Is this really happening. Get these people out of these DT lists and get some people who are objective in. If they the next ones fail to be provably objective get them out and get someone else until you find people that want to find the truth and make optimally fair decisions on all information available. Anyone making a bad call that is certainly based on false charges must be removed if they refuse to put their case in detail forward or remove the neg trust.

Same for people getting good trust if that is proven to be bought or some scheme and not really deserving needs removed and even ban them this is worse for scamming than copy and paste 4 years ago.

Surely I can not be the only person here noticing this is not looking great . I have had people even tell me they wish they could stick their necks out more to speak up for what they believe too but are scared of DT red trust these are legends who are worried to speak out . I understand and do not even blame them. Some of them are needing a clean sheet. I will never bring their names forward but I thank them for their support.


So anyway where is malboroza to polish up suchmoons account of what happened and why I deserve my red trust for correctly telling him he misquoted me. I will repeat i never said what he is claiming at all. Review the entire thread yourselves. He is mistaken he made false assumptions and I think such moon did too. Now i get red trust for their mistakes. I want those red marks off my account or credible and provable reason they should be there based on this nonsense story and silly video such moon made containing weird accusation of some shady rewrite and something obviously I said because it still there but is not even offensive at all.

Both of these need to be removed from DT trust if they do not stop with these crack pot stories when it is there in black and white what was said by whom and when on the other thread.

Malboroza quoted nothing  that could be a disturbing fantasy other than the ass thing and such moon quotes me objecting to this distrubing fantasy of malboroza which I correctly claim I never said . How can he try to pass off I was referring to anything else or how when he quoted that he was referring to anything else. Then his proof I did say it was a line about cant wait until suchmoon and malborazo gets theirs done (some other guy was taking away other top cyclers top 10 donators only and observing 100;s and 100;s merits vanashing from lauda and others just from 10 ppl)   then as soon as I said that as if by chance malboroza rolls out red trust for apparently an obvious quoting error on his part.

There is no other plausible explanation. Or if there is then I want to hear the details step by step with no possible logical rebuttal from me that others can check out on that thread.

All I did was read the claim and the reference link, and came to the conclusion that you were left negative feedback for something related to your behavior, which isn't trust abuse as long as its subjectively accurate. The subjective part is decided by anyone who reads the claim and either agrees or disagrees.

I dont trade ever. This is principle.
Let's not focus on extremes that to me bend the trust system out of any use. I mean if i saw lots of ppl with red trust for lemons then I would disregard the rating altogether Im sure most would too.

I will have him explain in full the reason so I can demonstrate there is altenative motive here. If he come with something valid that I can not fully rebut then let's see.

If he fails to produce a valid reason then he must be removed as a start to making the trust system a sensible rating indicative of how much you can trust someone or how truly undesirable someone should be view for presenting facts and stats.

You can not try to use it as a bully tactic to silence people who analyse stats and cause others to analyse futher.

You can not try to concoct a fantastically improbable story to give red trust to someone when there is clear other motive for doing it. That is dishonest and not part of a trust system.

Yes, I'm on DT. The lemons example was an extreme example of it not being trust abuse as long as its truthful. You can flag someone for being an account farmer, an account seller, or owning multiple accounts for example, all of those things are commonly done. They don't mean that they are scammers, but it is a factor that some people consider worthy of note when determining trustworthiness. Behavior traits that people may find undesirable can also be worth mentioning on someone's feedback if it is a factor that someone might want to know about that person before dealing with them.

People will disregard the negative feedback if they don't care, or they'll avoid trading with you if they feel that any perceived negative trait is valid and a risk.

So people can get red trust for saying lemon without it being an abuse of the trust system?

I want to address his specific reason I am not interested in lemons right now.

I want to hear the specific reason and I want to hear it in detail.

I don't want to address lemon hate right now.

Are you a DT member too?

Sorry but this is getting stranger and stranger by the moment.

Yes.

I wouldn't have thought it should if you weren't so eager to dig your hole deeper with ever-crazier conspiracy theories. Now I'm less sure of it.

That's my best guess.

There's this thing called time zones. Get a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do the shredding.

I'd say that if marlboroza was seeking revenge for stats then LoyceV and DdmrDdmr would be red up the wazoo so your theory sounds quite implausible.

For the record, I don't know if marlboroza weighs 300 pounds or 239. It was a joke in response to your request to "bring him".

The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions. Neither of your negative feedbacks say anything about doing a trade with you, it just says that you are annoying. Its not really abuse.

If I left you a negative because you said the word lemon, and I have a deep seeded hatred for lemons, its not really "abuse" as long as I don't say, this guy scammed my cat! The feedback that you got is subjectively accurate. My judgement might be called into question over giving out negatives to those who say lemon, but as long as the feedback is transparent and not dishonest, its not really abuse.

Not all negative feedback is weighed equally. Some people have negative feedback for being racist, account farming, owning multiple accounts,being annoying, scamming etc.

Yeah he comes in from searching his own name he mispelled on some obscure search engine  exactly as i mispelled it only few hours earlier and said the thread descended into " my first statement " then " something close  to my second statement " and nothing like anything you said and he was either quoting  you or nobody?  and I was totally off chart to consider he was quoting me??

this gets red trust

thats you account of what happend???

You are protecting this action??

Do you understand how MAD that sounds in the full context of that thread. Please control yourself on these ludicrous statements.

This is diabolical and worse that 300lbs of DT abuse is hiding constructing some junk excuse. Get him here at once. I will tear his argument to shreds within 5 seconds his entire premise is a lie. He is hating on me for stats I did not specifically request and be did not want to go through the 10 highest meriters filter. You are not meant to use DT trust for silencing people or revenge for simply pulling stats both subsets of which i did not even request.

If he has not removed it in short order I will not stop from requesting  EVER his removal from DT regardless of what he does. He has a few hours to do the right thing or bring his case here.

Wow. Ok. I said "IF he's quoting anybody that WOULD be me". That's very different from "he's quoting me" (see the usage of double quotation marks here; it doesn't mean anybody said that). The following sentence matters too. It clearly states that I don't think this was intended as a literal quote.

It hadn't occurred to me yet that you misinterpreted the double quotation marks.

Are you saying he is insane too i mean why would he say the thread has descended into red tag lauda in quotes something i said and then put in quotes something nobody said??? is he nuts?  Or perhaps he confused or mutated asskisser which i did say into something more offensive???

You said iif it anyone it was at you. So stop changing it. You are either crazy or you are lying to cover for this abuse.
Either way I will insist such a person needs to be out of DT too if you continue to fabricate such obvious nonsense and lies.
This is the most unbelievable nonsense I have ever seen postulated ever.

You said if anyone he was quoting you (suchmoon) but you never said anything like that.... now he is quoting nobody .... ??

it is obvious he quoted my first statment and deliberately misquoted me on the second statement as I said.

Well when I said he was misquoting me why did you not say..... that is not you he is quoting.... you said you can prove i said it.

Now run along and send the the 300lb of DT abuse here to answer for himself.

You too are part of this abuse because you are protecting it and enabling it.

The point of being in positions of trust here is to be OBJECTIVE and look reasonably and sensibly at the evidence. The account of events you are trying to introduce from mad fantasy to reality are a gross gross misjudgement or deliberate mutation of observable events.

I have heard enough to see you are either crazy or have no concern for presenting a sensible and credible case. You will be next for review on suitability for DT this is not a joke at all. This is a serious case of abuse and you are protecting it with fantastical nonsense almost like blantant lies if I knew you are fully sane I would be already calling for your removal based on this.

Review it again in full.... that entire thread you started... I think you are drunk or having an episode. Either way if you do not revise this absolutely crazy nonsense explanation you are just as bad.

Hmmm... seems you have a very persistent comprehension issue. I think I clearly said numerous times, including in the post that you just quoted, that the text in double quotation marks is not attributed to anyone.

I'm trying to help you out here because I don't think you deserve red trust just for being an annoying troll but since you insist on being a lying cunt I should probably stop caring. Have fun.

He said

."..so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass ""


the first thing is what I clearly said ..... so you expect me to believe that I also said TP is ass kissing Lauda  and that second quote was for you? lol now you realise you said nothing like it and change your story that is was to nobody.

You are absolutely mad to say this kind of thing and think anyone would even dream that could be true. You must be insane to believe this is even slighly believable

Come to the real world.

Bring the 300lbs of abusing the trust system here at once. Hiding up with no evidence and scared to come and be put under some sensible investigation and analysis for his actions.

I want him removed because I will never let it drop ever. He will have this abuse brought up as FACTUAL EVIDENCE  forever.

Your account of this is honestly so crazy and so dishonest I think you should get neg trust for even thinking people could believe this nonsense. I will request you are removed for enabling such dishonest abuse next so make sure not to be so obvious in making up blantant lies as a cover story.

I don't see it attributed to anybody, that's the point. It's a clearly sarcastic exaggeration. Quotes are in quote tags. Double quotation marks can be used among other things...


He's like 300 pounds, there's no way I can lift him.

I could be wrong but i think the Trust status has to do with only  "Trust related subjects". I am not talking about DT only, i am talking about leaving a feedback in general should be related to someone being trustworthy or not based on at least a "Trade" of any sort of goods or services be it physical or digital.

A few months ago I had a lot trading with many members on the forum, i was buying Bitmain coupons, bought couple hundreds of coupons and I had a nightmare checking the integrity of the trust feedback for many users.

some had a bunch of RED flags simply because they like to be  assholes to others and they were tagged for simply that reason, but when i check their feedback that is related to buying/selling on the forum they had positive tags, and the same goes the other way around.

I think we should have a sub trust system like a "cool meter"  for tagging people you like / people you do not like /   trolling people / names you dislike or simply for whatever reason you see fit  . and leave the current trust for mostly business related so that we can easily filter the worthy of doing business with. because really I could care less if the person I am dealing with is an asshole as long as he keeps their promise and keeps their end of the deal.

It is clear that it is meant to be what i said on that thread.

1. you never said anything related to TP or lauda anywhere near that context so why would it refer to you at all??

2. I said tp was an ass kisser of laudas and provided evidence. which he accepted took place but denied it constituted ass kissing.

That is logically aimed at me. Wtf why would  it be a quote of something you didnt say at all or even like anything you said ...when what I said is not that same thing at all but could be exagerated to that at a gross stretch....but you never mentioned in that thread anything like that at all.

Are you seriously telling me he was aiming quoting something you didnt go near mentioning? ... get real. Nobody could accept that explanation because you never said anything like that.

Then when I said he was misquoting me about that you said you had proof and i said present it.

Which you did not because it did not exist.

I want him to come and explain it in detail now. If not I want to see him removed on the basis of abusing the system to silence presentation of raw data. I would expect any fair analysis would have him getting red trust for this. Flagrant abuse with clear motive.

Where is he hiding anyway letting you come here for him. Bring him here I want to speak with him directly. Hiding up is not helping his case.


The story I am hearing so far.


1. he was browsing for himself on a obscure search engine and happend to mispell his name in the exact way i did and came to that other thread.

2. He notices he is being put under the top 10 meriters removal spot light by chance of course ... cos most ppl search for their own names on obscure search engines and spell it wrong like someone else did that day

3. He uses some strange """""" to misquote suchmoon  who has said nothing similar at all to what he is quoting

4. He thinks I should get red trust because I assumed he was quoting me because I am the only person who said anything related to that quote.

5. I say he misquoted me LIKE HE DID

He says red trust now because false accusation.

I mean even if that unlikely joke is true that is not a reason to red trust when anyone reasonable can see why i would think that.

Cool story bro.

OR

He is pissed at me for being number 1 in the entire forum on that reduction list of the smallest circle

He sees I said he should be put through the 10 top meriters reduction filter that others were being put through on this new thread I did not even start

He turns up and gives me red trust on some trumped up nonsense that is incorrect as revenge for it.





Hmmm i wonder.

He put the thread title in double quotation marks too so if he's quoting anybody that would be me. But the fact is that actual attributed quotes are in quote tags, whereas double quotation marks can have other meanings.

I did, for the actual quotes.

It's not clear at all since the text in double quotation marks is not attributed to you in any way.

Of course it is attributed to me ....he is saying i said this

who else is he saying said it in the context of this thread.... why is he putting it in ""

When i said i never said that you said you could prove that i did say it .... bring the proof now.

It is clear he is misquoting me or provide reasonable explanation who else could be saying said this on this thread???

This is trumped up nonsense to try and silence me when I already said I wanted to stop discussing it several threads ago.

HE needs to provide evidence I deserve this and that this is not a clear attempt to damage my account for his own personal vendetta because he believes being Number 1 on that list. Disgraceful.  The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favour.

Yeah I'm sure that he is very happy to see he is number 1 for receiving the most merits from the smallest amount of people on this board. Im sure that is a great thing for him. Get real please. This is not my fault I actually never requested only top 50 removal

Click on the reference link. It seems quite obvious what the red trust is for.

You seem to be confused about the double quotes. If that's the case, retract your statement and let marlboroza know. The text in double quotes is not attributed to you in any plausible way that I can see.


You seem to be projecting. I doubt anyone on that list is upset about your manipulations thereof.

Look I don't want a counter measure I want to have the exact reason explained in detail of my red trust. He must bring this detailed reason or else I want it removed. I don;t wish for a counter I want it removed.

If he does not provide adequate and logical reason for this he needs to be removed from DT.

This put the entire trust system in question.

I know he is upset about being number 1 on that reduction of the smallest subset list but this is not reason to abuse the trust system.

I'm just telling you what the reference link on your trust rating points to.


LOL, ok that solves my dilemma of whether I should add a counter rating for you. I don't know what else I can do for you when you're so belligerent.

what  are you talking about I can not get red trust for saying you guys need to have your merits passed through the removal of the top 10 merit givers next... the others had theirs done you two should not escape

that is disgusting red trusting me for that. Flagrant abuse of this system.

remove it at once. Or i insist he is remove from DT on the basis of trying to silence me on things he does not like which are factual observable stats.

He miss quoted me in "" also on purpose and you said you could present where I said it ... bring your evidence of accusation or delete your lie  also.

Where is the doctoring also there is none.............bring this evidence at once or you are lying. I can see you are lying clearly from the thread it is there in black and white and you clearly say you can prove i said it. Produce now.

Look at the bottom of his post

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

it is clearly about the merit he is upset about he starts saying i have to contact theymos to remove his 50 points so he is clearly on about the number 1  ranking in loyces top 50 removal chart. How can you claim otherwise looking at his post???

The quotes are actual quotes of your posts. I even posted a video of it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48751102

That seems to be what you got your neg trust for - a baseless accusation of doctoring quotes. Not some made-up merit nonsense that you're so agitated about.

I mean the subject of DT being able to add a red tag next to someone because you don't like them revealing stats on your account.

One example of such Abuse but this is not directly related to only him. I think if he is doing it to silence people many could then adopt this kind of actoin.

This relatively new user marlboroza is trying to silence me presenting or asking for stats not even specifically about him originally it just happened he was number 1 on the entire board.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48689242

The list without Merit sent by the Top 50 Merit Receivers
     1. -49.10% marlboroza earned 558 284 Merit from outside the Top 50 Merit Receivers

Who makes NUMBER 1 SPOTn on the ENTIRE board ...he blames me probably but I actually had no idea it would reveal this about him specifically

For having his merits reduced the most on the entire board. From the smallest subset analysed yet.

Suddenly when another member is demonstrating many have their merits apparently reduce by near 50% by just having 10 peoples merits taken away .... we are talking 100s and 100s of merits.

He come to this thread apparently not because he is stalking me and using my posts as an excuse to spam his high paying sig (which i challenged him to remove for a year if I would do the same) not going to do that is he

He says he was googling his own name on an obscure search engine THAT HE CANT REMEMBER WHICH ONE..but spelled in incorrectly like i had and arrive at my thread. I mean what are the chances?? What kind of mad junk excuses can these people come up with from time travel to this kind of nonsense.

Then  he see's i said I wonder what his own merit score will be when just his top 10 are removed because most of the others stalking me have had theirs done already. Not that I even wanted that thread started (i did not want that one or the one prior started which can be verified) nor to mention it further after I said it was the end of it all on past threads several time.

I mean of course he hates this being already in NUMBER 1 spot for getting so much merit small the smallest subset analysed yet.


such moon now is claiming lower down this thread it is nothing to do with merits.... oh really look at the bottom of his post he is still banging on about all of this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

over 2 threads after I said I want to stop going on about it since it had all been discussed and we are going around in circles. Then they made 2 new threads about it all mentioning me in the op or thread title and making it about me. Not that I care but then saying I am going on about it is another crazy load of crap they push out and expect me not to notice what is happening.

the post below that is apparently the red trust worthy one

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243


Then decides to leave me negative red trust without disproving anything that I have said and trys to then misquote me saying I said things I did not also.

This is flagrant abuse of DT trust and makes the entire system invalid for highlighting scammers.

I would like this new user who seems to abuse this system removed from DT trust unless he can provide a reason why I should have negative trust by defining trolling in the context of all the every single meta thread and this new one and demonstrate anything I have said is wrong.

You can not allow these people to give red DT trust to silence people because they have no answers.

The fact is i had said at least 5 x that I wanted to drop the conversation and they kept making new threads about it and kept asking question about it then said I was spamming for replying to direct accusations and incorrect quotes and misrepresentations of what I had previously said.

This is flagrant abuse of his position which he is clearly not suitable for.

I want him to produce a full and detailed rebuttal of my points of accept it is not trolling and remove the DT trust at once. If he fails that is abuse and he needs to be removed from that position.

No need to comment on this unless you can prove anything that I have claimed is incorrect in detail.

Again bring a full detailed rebuttal of my statements on merit and a full explanation of how after I have said I don't want to discuss it but they are creating more threads and more questions that justifies trolling.

I am not really interested in any other discussions other that specifically on the crucial points here. Comments that do not bring a full and comprehensive argument for the opinions will be ignored since that makes them groundless.

He was not happy about being Number 1 on that reduction list and he is not happy someone started examining scores with just the top 10 removed. He can not give neg trust on some other bullshit when that is clearly the reason.

This is an important thread for the entire DT trust system which also seems like quite a dangerous system leading to central control by a few people.

All action must be explained by him in detail here. I expect to see an iron clad argument for him the motive here is clear and a disgrace.

This is a thread for META - systemic abuse of this DT system and the merit system needs to be attended to directly in his case and in others. I mean if you can prove you do not deserve neg trust it should be removed.

I am not a trader so it does not really damage my account but this is on principle.

Make sure to read all of the previous related threads on this debacle before commenting and I mean all post made in detail. These people are making a mockery of this board all spamming their high paid sigs and acting holier than thou.  I challenged any of them to remove sigs for one year if i did the same  so they can condemn trying to monetise the board with impunity and they all refused.